[WSIS CS-Plenary] Civil Society Strategy Issues, outcomes of meeting today

[Chun Eung Hwi]

Thank you, Ralph Bendrath and others!

Just some comments!

Although we are preparing for civil society declaration, it is to be our 
own independent document. It will make some impact on governments, but its 
status is to be yet out of WSIS.

So, I am thinking that if we could exploit our negitiation chip of
"multistakeholder" label, we could develop some form of our contents to be
included in WSIS documents. One reference is "amicus brief". Amicus brief
is regarded as one part of the whole documents, but it is one independent
view and shed some lights on issues. I am not so sure whether this form of
document attachment is to be satisfactory to all civil society
participants. But I think it would be better to be contained in official
documents rather than to publish our own document. If we could suggest
this new form of contribution as one appendix or attachment of official
documents, it could become a new way of civil society participation.  
Even when we devise this kind of engagement and it is to be accepted, I
think we can choose another independent action in parallel.

Other observer's assessment could also be taken into account, but I don't 
think that business sector could not become our cooperative partner. 
Regarding this point, in last PrepCom I, I remember there had been so many 
discussions. Civil society has raised up the question that business sector 
is over-represented in the current multistakeholder approach because they 
are joining in international organizations and even in civil society.


regards,

Chun


On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Ralf Bendrath wrote:

> Hi all, 
> 
> we met in a new working group today to discuss the general strategy we
> as civil society should choose towards the whole summit. It was
> triggered by the work on the "Non-Negotiables" document and the obvious
> question following from this: "What will happen on our side if our
> demands are not met?".
> 
> The following list is a summary of the issues that were raised. We did
> not decide on anything, as these questions definitely have to be dealt
> with in the plenary. 
> However, the general consensus in the group was: 
> 
> 1. The "multistakeholder" label gives uns some power. We can threaten to
> refuse lending our legitimacy to the summit outcomes. That means: For
> the first time we as civil society have a bargaining chip in an
> international process. We have to think about how to use it, as this is
> a new situation for civil society.
> 
> 2. We should stay inside thew summit activities (we have every right to
> be there!), but really make sure that our concerns are clearly and
> visibly communicated. There is some room between just walking out and
> playing the game and being nice.
> 
> 2. The latter point is obviously strongly related to the question of who
> will speak on our behalf at the summit opening ceremony and in the
> roundtables. It should be a major issue in the nominations ad hoc
> committee. (And yes, please don't discuss these on the plenary list any
> more!)
> 
> The next meeting of the strategy group will be on Thursday, 18:00, down
> in the Cybercafe at CICG.
> 
> Best regards, 
> 
> Ralf Bendrath
> editor, http://www.worldsummit2003.org
> 
> 
> -----------------------------
> Civil Society Strategy Issues
> raised at the strategy working group meeting on 11 November 2003, 18:00
> CET
> 
> 
> --------
> analysis
> --------
> 
> - General question: Our "non-negotiables" will foreseeably not be met.
> What do we do then?
> - The more negotiations on content are messes up among governments, the
> more the multistakeholder approach is becoming central to the whole
> success of the summit. At least this is what the secretariat com
> municates in its press releases etc. See
> <http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/510.htm> for a detailed analysis. 
> - This gives uns some power. We can threaten to refuse lending our
> legitimacy to the summit outcomes. That means: For the first time we as
> civil society have a bargaining chip in an international process.
> - This is new and unusual for us. We have to learn how to use it. So
> far, we have done classical lobbying like we would not have any power
> here.
> 
> ------------------------
> strategic options for us
> ------------------------
> - Walking out and go back to the "streets". Even having demonstrations?
> - Linking more with alternative/counter summit events like
> www.geneva03.org
> - Staying in (we have the right to be there!) and telling our story and
> critique of the summit: Connect with nomination issue for our slots
> - Getting endorsement for our "non-negotiables" document from as many
> organisations as possible (individual organisations as well as joint CS
> groups like CT group or even CS plenary)
> - Presenting our vision! Endorsement issue as above.
> - Who is our audience? TV viewers or governments? At the summit
> (different from the preparatory process), it will be more TV viewers and
> newspaper readers, as the world public will look at Geneva then.
> - Will lobbying still make sense in December at the summit? This
> probably depends on what issues are still open among the governments by
> then.
> - What to do with the other observers (business and international
> organisations)? We should find out their assessment of the process and
> the outcomes. Maybe there is some common ground!
> - There will be many different side-events at the summit. How do we
> focus attention to our overarching and common concerns?
> 
> -----------------------------
> to do's / ideas for follow-up
> -----------------------------
> 
> - Prepare detailed assessment of where our issues got in and where not,
> also on process. This will be done in follow-up to the "Non-Negotiables"
> document).
> - Pre-emptive "warning" at the end of this week on what we could do at
> the summit (press release/conference): "We will not accept the final
> documents"
> - Link our strategy discussion with the nomination of our speakers at
> the official summit events and make sure the statement delivered at the
> sum mit plenary will fit into the strategy
> - Link up with organisations that have not been involved in the WSIS
> process so far (new ones and "countersummit" activists)
> - Define and make clear whom we represent, just write it for the press
> (CS plenary etc., "we do not represent everybody, but we did not exclude
> anybody")
> - Prepare joint press events for the summit (we need a press team!)
> - Find out the other observer groups' assessments. Rumour is that they
> are also annoyed by not being heard.
> - Organize some online space. Do we want a joint CS website for the
> summit? What will happen to www.wsis-cs.org? (I guess the webmasters
> will have another coordination meeting this week.)
> - Decide about joint space at the summit. Do we have CS plenary there?
> Here the 600 passes limit is a serious problem. Nice idea: Everybody who
> does not get in is automatically demonstrating on the street. ;-)
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82)  2-2166-2205
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea  	    | eMail:   chun at peacenet.or.kr
------------------------------------------------------------